Does anyone remember when Richard Nixon discussed one of the redeeming features of the Soviet Union as being its antipathy of homosexuals when he was talking in his office about Archie Bunker, said exactly the same thing? [Warning, fowl language, blasphemy] At first he starts demurring, saying he has no moral objections to homosexuality, then goes on to say that the immorality actually destroys societies. It's also interesting that Nixon's off-color comments are made much of when figures like Gandhi and Voltaire get away with it. Of course, apologists for Richard Nixon won't defend what Nixon was saying, they'll just argue that times, and morals, have changed, and if you know anything about principles, it's an indefensible position to take, but anyway.

Of course, never mind Richard Nixon, despite the fact that he's correct. Let another voice speak by way of a message from Bminormass on 'www.fisheaters.com", who said in his book, "Life is Worth Living" on P. 260, where he quotes the sociologist, Dr. Sorokin, who said:

Yes, yes. But what can be expected when actual history and classical philosophy are no longer taught? Almost no one in academia today continues to make the logical connections that were made for centuries in universities throughout the world.

It’s another side of the demoralization of the target society, and this is by design

Try making a coherent argument to certain types of people about why immorality is objectively evil or why objective truth itself is important, and they really have no idea what you’re talking about and have been vitiated in many cases by years of dissolute living, watching bad television and so forth so that their hearts and minds are pretty much calcified.

An indeterminate name for an indeterminate group of people who were migrating in different parts of the Empire at the time. Some of them were certainly German speakers, but not all as the records were shaky.

Actually, there were factors underlying the fact that large numbers of Germans were crossing the borders to serve in the Roman Army and provide a cheap source of labor, since the birthrate in the Empire was dropping, inexplicably, say some.

Does anyone remember when Richard Nixon discussed one of the redeeming features of the Soviet Union as being its antipathy of homosexuals when he was talking in his office about Archie Bunker, said exactly the same thing? [Warning, fowl language, blasphemy] At first he starts demurring, saying he has no moral objections to homosexuality, then goes on to say that the immorality actually destroys societies. It’s also interesting that Nixon’s off-color comments are made much of when figures like Gandhi and Voltaire get away with it. Of course, apologists for Richard Nixon won’t defend what Nixon was saying, they’ll just argue that times, and morals, have changed, and if you know anything about principles, it’s an indefensible position to take, but anyway.

Of course, never mind Richard Nixon, despite the fact that he’s correct. Let another voice speak by way of a message from Bminormass on ‘www.fisheaters.com”, who said in his book, “Life is Worth Living” on P. 260, where he quotes the sociologist, Dr. Sorokin, who said:

‘’Those families among us who frequently change husbands and wives, who fail in their duties to their children and adopt the moral code of the gutter, are pushing us along the road to chaos. Greece, in the 3rd and the 2nd centuries before Christ, brought sex into the open. We know because there were men in those days too, who prided themselves on their objectivity as they calmly recorded the destressing picture of whole families getting together to indulge in promiscuous behaviour. Adultery and prostitution were so common that those who indulged were regarded merely as interesting fellows.
But, such a society was not able to summon the backbone to resist in the face of war , or to endure the austerity programme that might have salvaged that overblown economy. Soon, the glory that was Greece was over and the mighty Acropolis was only a hillside strewn with ruined marble.’’

Roberto de Mathei is a Traditionalist Catholic and was in the news earlier this week when he was critical of the current Pope and Vatican II as reported by Sandro Magister. He has also blamed the disasters besetting Japan on the wrath of God.

More recently, the Vice President of Italy’s National Research Council, has angered many Italians for comments they consider to be insensitive, namely, blaming Rome’s fall on the collapse of its morals and infestation by homosexuality. According to the article by the Telegraph, more than 7,000 people have signed a petition asking for his resignation.

Various Catholophobic voices spread their hate filled opinions for all who would listen.
“His homophobic and extreme views are offensive to the organisation he leads,” said Massimo Donadi, a senior member of an opposition party, Italy of Values, adding that he would refer the affair to parliament.

Anna Paola Concia, an MP from the main opposition Democratic Party, said: “A fanatic such as him cannot remain vice-president of the council in a country that has at its heart culture, human rights and respect for diversity. He is nothing other than a homophobic fundamentalist on a par with Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad.” Prof De Mattei, who was awarded an order of knighthood by the Vatican in recognition for his service to the Catholic Church, has previously caused controversy by speaking out about gay rights, the contraceptive pill and the alleged persecution of Christians by Muslims in Kosovo and Lebanon.

27
posted on 04/10/2011 2:35:20 PM PDT
by Popman
(Obama. First Marxist to turn a five year Marxist plan into a 4 year administration.)

It’s a pity that he did not elaborate, because it would have raised a very interesting subject. Not homosexuals, but eunuchs, were by far more destructive and dangerous to a nation.

In those empires that employed them, eunuchs seemed to be the perfect bureaucrat. And to some extent that was correct. However, all soon realized that eunuchs should never be given real power, because power is “their coin”. Without sex, their lust is for power, and if they see it, they will work unceasingly to get it.

While homosexuals were always “there”, they were also subject to similar demands from sex. If anything, more so, because they were rarely satisfied with monogamy, having no reason to be.

But their actual impact is difficult to divine, because there was less of a dividing line. As the saying went: “Women for children, but boys for pleasure.”

You should at least get your story right before you get it straight, no pun intended. I did not call him a homosexual, I merely suggested it as a possibility, given his gratuitous attacks on me personally.

He called me a “pimp”. Now I don’t know which one is more offensive, but I’m through discussing the matter.

"I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR.

If a blogger cant or refuses do that, and if he constantly complains or fights with our participants over it, then Id just as soon he doesnt post here. Its not my job to make his content or his presentation or cooperation acceptable to our readers. Thats his job. And if he cannot do it or refuses to do it and continues posting brief excerpts only and obviously attempting to draw away our participants while loudly complaining about it, then I have no sympathy for his complaints and the more apt I am to ban his account and blog.

Furthermore, Im not big on rules. You wont see me posting rules for bloggers. The rules for bloggers on FR are the same as the rules for everyone else. If you are a good conservative activist and are willing to work with US on OUR goals and causes and not against US, then youre welcome to post to FR. But unless we say otherwise your blog material should be posted to our bloggers forum and it would be best if you do not excerpt your own material and if you would actually join in on the discussion here on FR. Were not really that interested in driving OUR traffic to YOUR blog."

Eunuchs were used well into the Byzantine period and later, but they weren’t particularly numerous. They may have played a role in corruption, but the issue is really dealing with homosexuality and immorality, which does have a marked influence on a society on all levels and was remarked upon by contemporaries in Periclean Athens, for example, and by St. Augustine in his Confessions.

You’ll also notice Nixon’s point just after Archbishop Sheen’s. They’re all making the same argument for immorality, and homosexuality, as the source of the decline. of course, there’s also Sodom and Gomorrah...

At the same time, though, I can’t but think that homosexuals were more a symptom than a cause.

The best evidence of this is that at its height, there would have been at least some homogeneity (no pun, really), throughout the major centers of the Roman Empire. But it was a thousand years after the collapse of the western empire that the eastern, Byzantine empire folded.

Far more geographic oriented, with the western empire under pressure from the barbarians.

The Barbarians were always a factor in Roman history, it’s just that she was always better equipped in terms of manpower to field an effective military and social response, but by the time we’re talking about, owing to the decay of the societies morality, so say Nixon, +Sheen and other historians, they were incapable of keeping the political integrity of the Empire intact as it was before, and the outer borders deteriorated.

It’s like a disease which attacks the structure of the bones, eventually, the mass of the body itself is insupportable because of the decay.

First, DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis is a she. So if she likes guys, it’s fine with me.

Second, you’ve been asked why you don’t post your whole blob. Do you have something worth saying? I don’t know, but you think you do. Why not actually post it? Are you trying to contribute, or divert traffic for blob hits? If it’s the latter, I consider you a user, not a contributor.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.